Karnataka High Court
Pradeep Hiremath vs Smt. Smruthi Pradeep Hiremath on 25 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
CRL.RP No. 89 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.89 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. PRADEEP HIREMATH
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI CHANDRASHEKAR
HIREMATH
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3. SMT. PAVITHRA RAJENDRA HIREMATH
W/O RAJENDRA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 4. SRI RAJENDRA HIREMATH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O ALLAMAPRABHU HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ALL THE ABOVE R/AT No.G-7
GITANJALI PRIDE, 5TH MAIN
3RD CROSS, MALLESHPALYA
BENGALURU - 560075
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRATHIMA S K, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
CRL.RP No. 89 of 2022
AND:
SMT. SMRUTHI PRADEEP HIREMATH
D/O KAILASNATH ARADHYAMATH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT No.947, 'APPAJI'
D GROUP EMPLOYEES LAYOUT
LINGADHEERANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560091
ALSO AT RESIDING AT No.696
KAKOL ROAD, BYADGI,
DISTRICT - HAVERI
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.9/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
CRL.RP No. 89 of 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
2. The present revision petition is filed challenging the
order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1
in Crl.Misc.No.221/2019 wherein an interim maintenance was
awarded in favour of the respondent herein directing the first
respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and
also directed the respondents not disturb the petitioner's
possession of house stated in the complaint cause title and the
first respondent shall pay the rent of the said premises along
with other charges. If the petitioner is not residing in the said
premises, the first respondent shall provide separate residence
to the petitioner till the disposal of the main petition. The said
order has been challenged before the First Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.9/2021. The First Appellate Court considering the
material on record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision
petition is filed before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
3. The main contention of the counsel for the
petitioners is that the respondent is well educated being a BE
graduate in Computer Science and she cannot sit idle and put
responsibilities only on the husband and seek for maintenance.
The counsel also would vehemently contend that when she was
BE Graduate in Computer Science and she was also employed
in a reputed company namely Fact Personnel Private Limited
and drawing a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- as annual salary. Apart
from the same, respondent, as per the order of the CJM has
been occupying the rented premises belonging to the
petitioner's sister and the rent for the same is being paid by the
first petitioner. That being the case, a sum of Rs.25,000/- per
month is totally against established principles of law. The
counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that both
the Courts have failed to consider the grounds which have been
urged in the respective petitions hence, it requires interference
of this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of
her arguments relied upon the judgment reported in
CRL.REV.P.NO.344/2011 in the case of DAMANREET KAUR
vs INDERMEET JUNEJA AND ANOTHER and brought to
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
notice of this Court to the discussion made in page No.4 with
regard to the observation made that the law does not help
indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self
made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of
maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere
efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this
attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing
amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out
the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far
away after an emerging of litigation.
5. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court in CRL.R.P.NO.1324/2015 dated 19.06.2023 wherein
also discussion was made with regard to the capacity of the
husband that the husband is running provision stores and he is
having responsibilities of taking care of his mother and
unmarried sister and considering the same, reduced the
maintenance amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The
counsel relying upon these judgments would vehemently
contend that the order of the Trial Court requires interference.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
while awarding the maintenance taken note of the capacity of
the husband and in paragraph 5 of the order, the Trial Court
discussed that the husband is getting gross salary of
Rs.2,09,874/- per month hence, the interim maintenance has
to be decided on the basis of this salary and also taken note of
the settled principle of law that the petitioner being the wife of
first respondent is entitled to live a life in the manner first
respondent is living and awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- per
month and not passed any order without any material. Hence,
it does not require any interference. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that even though an order has been
passed to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, the
petitioners have only complied with the order of this Court not
continued to pay the maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month
hence, the order of the Trial Court does not requires any
interference.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, it
discloses that admittedly the maintenance which is passed is
only an interim maintenance and the matter is pending before
the Trial Court for consideration on merits. It is also not in
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
dispute that the husband is working and earning. But nothing is
placed on record to show that the respondent is working and
getting the salary. It is the contention of the respondent that
when the marriage was fixed, she was asked to leave the job
and hence, she left the job immediately after the marriage.
Whether she has continued the job or she has left the job after
the marriage is a matter of trial since the matter is pending
before the Trial Court. Admittedly, as on today, she is not
working. The fact that the husband is working and getting the
salary and his salary certificate also produced before the Trial
Court. Taking into note of the said document, the Trial Court
awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to
the respondent herein and the same does not appears to be
unreasonable.
8. It is the contention that the respondent is staying in
a rented premises in petitioner's sister. The order of the Trial
Court is very clear that if the respondent is living in the
complaint cause title address, the first petitioner shall pay the
rent of the said premises and if the respondent is not residing
in the said premises, first petitioner shall provide separate
residence to the respondent herein. The contention of the
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
counsel for the petitioners that when the tenant was living in
the premises, the respondent thrown out them from the
premises. Whether the respondent has thrown out the tenant
from the premises or not is a matter of trial. Admittedly, she is
staying in a premises belongs to the first petitioner's sister.
When such being the case, having taken note of the material
on record, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts
in determining the quantifying the amount. Hence, I do not find
any error committed by both the Courts. The First Appellate
Court also on re-appreciation of material on record comes to
the conclusion that the Trial Court while quantifying the amount
of maintenance, taken note of the salary of the husband after
the deductions and the First Appellate Court comes to a right
conclusion that the amount quantified by the Trial Court is not
exorbitant and unreasonable. The Court has to take note of the
status of the parties while awarding the maintenance. Thus, I
do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of both
the Courts and there is no merit in the revision petition to
interfere with regard to the quantum.
9. The counsel for the respondent would vehemently
contend that arrears of maintenance has not been paid and
NC: 2024:KHC:16654
now, the balance of arrears is Rs.11,05,500/- and the said
contention is disputed by the counsel for the petitioners.
Hence, the Trial Court is directed to take note of the same and
if any such arrears, the respondent is given liberty to proceed
against the petitioners in accordance with law for recovery.
10. The counsel for the petitioners submits that though
the petition was filed in the year 2019, till date, evidence has
not been commenced. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to
dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible since the
matter is pending from 2019 and the same has to be decided
on merits including see that arrears of maintenance paid
periodically without venturing to filing of necessary application.
11. Protecting the interest of both the parties with
regard to the payment of maintenance as well as the rights of
the parties, the matter has to be determined in accordance with
law. With this observation, this revision petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
